Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27060753›Full record

ArticleAccident; analysis and prevention2016

Differences in state drug testing and reporting by driver type in U.S. fatal traffic crashes.

Megan E Slater, I-Jen P Castle, Barry K Logan, Ralph W Hingson

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Accident; analysis and prevention, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Megan E SlaterCSR, Incorporated, 4250 Fairfax Drive, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22203, United States. Electronic address: mslater@csrincorporated.com.
I-Jen P CastleCSR, Incorporated, 4250 Fairfax Drive, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22203, United States.
Barry K LoganNMS Labs, 3701 Welsh Road, Willow Grove, PA 19090, United States.
Ralph W HingsonNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 5635 Fishers LN, Rockville, MD 20852, United States.
Center for Scientific Review · USEvaporated Coatings (United States) · USNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism · US

Funding

NICHD NIH HHS HHSN275201300016C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDriving under the influence of drugs, including marijuana, has become more prevalent in recent years despite local, state, and federal efforts to prevent such increases. The Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) is the primary source of drugged driving data for fatal crashes in the United States but lacks the completeness required to calculate unbiased estimates of drug use among drivers involved in fatal crashes.

methodsThis article uses the 2013 FARS dataset to present differences in state drug testing rates by driver type, driver fault type, and state-level factors; discusses limitations related to analysis and interpretation of drugged driving data; and offers suggestions for improvements that may enable appropriate use of FARS drug testing data in the future.

resultsResults showed that state drug testing rates were highest among drivers who died at the scene of the crash (median=70.8%) and drivers who died and were at fault in the crash (median=64.4%). The lowest testing rates were seen among surviving drivers who were not transported to a hospital (median=14.0%) and surviving drivers who were not at fault in the crash (median=10.0%). Drug testing rates differed by state blood alcohol content (BAC) testing rate across all driver types and driver fault types, and in general, states that tested a higher percentage of drivers for BAC had higher drug testing rates. DISCUSSION: Testing rates might be increased through standardization and mandatory testing policies. FARS data users should continue to be cautious about the limitations of using currently available data to quantify drugged driving. More efforts are needed to improve drug testing and reporting practices, and more research is warranted to establish drug concentration levels at which driving skills become impaired.

Indexed as

Substance Abuse DetectionAccidents, TrafficAdultAgedAutomobile DrivingFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrevalenceSubstance-Related DisordersSystems AnalysisUnited StatesYoung AdultDrugged drivingDrug testing ratesFARS dataMarijuanaState variation

Identifiers

PMID27060753
PMCPMC4886475
OpenAlexW2319774334

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.